The Debate on the Lisbon Debate

LB6

Where did I say that? - I put it up as I thought you might like to take shreads out of it or agree with it - make up your own minds.

Flamed Diving

LB6 wrote: »

Where did I say that? - I put it up as I thought you might like to take shreads out of it or agree with it - make up your own minds.

You didn't say it directly, but your use of language seemed positive towards it, as if you were selling it to us. Words can say more than the sum of their parts.

LB6

So you're reading between my lines! Going on your response I'd say you're in the YES camp.

Either way - nothing that we can say at this hour can influence the vote one way or the other.

I know what I'm doing. That'll do me.

LB6

In an Irish Referendum, do you have to be an Irish citizen to vote (because it's a constitutional issue), or can you vote if you are simply on the register of electors?

Red Sleeping Beauty

LB6 wrote: »

In an Irish Referendum, do you have to be an Irish citizen to vote (because it's a constitutional issue), or can you vote if you are simply on the register of electors?

Gotta be Irish.

check here : http://www.checktheregister.ie/
If you get a "P" in the table there then you're good.

nesf

LB6 wrote: »

In an Irish Referendum, do you have to be an Irish citizen to vote (because it's a constitutional issue), or can you vote if you are simply on the register of electors?

Only Irish Citizens are allowed vote in Referendums.

Irish Citizens and British Citizens are allowed to vote in Dáil Elections.

Irish Citizens, British Citizens and EU citizens can vote in EU elections.

Irish Citizens, British Citizens, EU citizens and citizens from other countries can vote in Local Elections.


The whole Irish/British thing is reciprocated in their system, we can vote in their General Elections while (if I'm remembering things correctly) other EU citizens cannot.

LB6

Appreciate that info - tx lads - was just a query a friend had. - 100% purebred Irish here !

RedPlanet

turgon wrote: »

FT had 20+ quotes (ill take your figure) however many of these were from the same source (TEU). The "variety of sources" declaration was mainly made due to Blitzkriegs quoting of the French Constitution, which I thought was an novel move. But I supposed that just me being biased, huh?

Oh well why didn't you just say that the first time.
Let's see, from Page 1:

FT's sources:

The Referenda Wording
Lucindacreighton.ie
Irish Times
Independent.ie
Counicl of EU - Consolidated verstion of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty of the Functioning of th EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
ETUI
Angus-reid.com
TV3
Dailymail.co.uk
Daily Telegraph
Euractiv.com
Wikepedia
Euabc.com
BBC
Oireachtas.ie
Timesonline.co.uk
Sunday Business Post
Dick Roche interview with The Irish Catholic
Coir
biotechnologyireland.com
Finfacts
RTE
European Court of Justice
eurofound.europa.eu/

BlitzKriegs:

Article 6 TEU
ETUC.org
euobserver.com/
mediafir.com
seaaroundus.org
assemblee-nationale.fr/english
independent.ie
irisheconomy.ie

I would have to say that FT indeed, used a very wide variety of sources, particularly in comparision to BlitzKrieg.
However you saw appropriate only to compliemnt BltizKrieg.

Procasinator

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Just for fun , I spent 5 minutes copying only FT's posts into a word document to get a feel for their length. The 32-page text document is attached if anybody would like to take it to bed with them tonight to help them make up their mind on the legalities of the Lisbon treaty. I have included quoted text which appears in the posts (because presumably if you are quoting it directly in your posts, you expect it to be read to back up your points) but not 'linked' quoted text.

If you want to read that and you have that kind of time, fair play to you. I personally think it's a long way beyond the scope of what this debate set out to do - help people who are undecided on how to vote.

Who is following this debate at this stage? A handful of people with an awful lot of time and patience.
Are any of those people likely to be influenced by it (i.e. change their mind)? I could be wrong but I doubt it! One or two maybe.
What is the objective of this debate at this stage?

Well at a glance his quoted way to liberally, and was trying to be all-inclusive. Take out half the quotes and replace them with references to the actual paragraphs - see how long it is.

There are few quotes in there that take up a page almost in themselves, but the emphasis only takes a line or 2. I can only assume this is because he doesn't want to be accused of partial quoting or omitting the contradictions, which the no campaigners so frequently do.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In university, the reason they set fairly tight word limits is to encourage students to learn how to economise on words, etc. That is the skill to conveying a message through text, and is perhaps the most vital talent one can gain from uni, especially Arts students. Keeping the format neat and the words to a minimum, that's how to make a point. FT seems to have missed that class!

That's funny, at university I learned how to quickly scan papers and such to find the relevant information and to wade through the crap and overtly verbose and "elegant" writing.

Academia is not a great example of writing, especially at the higher levels.

While the tight word limits do serve purpose you mention, it's also in place to make the nasty business of corrections easier.

Check the fog index on an Arts phD at some stage.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

PC-agenda eh?

The mask finally slips...

Well, you needn't worry. Immigration policy can never be influenced by the Irish after today.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, you needn't worry. Immigration policy can never be influenced by the Irish after today.

Oh, don't talk rubbish. You know better than that.

regards,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh, don't talk rubbish. You know better than that.

regards,
Scofflaw

You're right. We already don't have any control with regards to migrants from other member states.

If I supposed to preface that with 'I'm not a racist', I forgot.

Even the referendum commission details the manner in which national decisions concerning immigration is reduced by Lisbon (which will in all likelihood be passed today).

Is that Nigerian woman that all the media fuss was about (can't remember her name) still appealing the Irish Courts' decision of deportation through the ECJ by the way?

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is that Nigerian woman that all the media fuss was about (can't remember her name) still appealing the Irish Courts' decision of deportation through the ECJ by the way?

Is that the one who wanted to protect her daughter from having her clitoris slit off?

Hopefully, and hopefully she wins.

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Is that the one who wanted to protect her daughter from having her clitoris slit off?

Hopefully, and hopefully she wins.

The one with the daughter Elizabeth claimed had died who turned out to not to exist. Izetbekhai has admitted using forged-documents. In any other country, she'd be long gone by now. She's not because we are a soft touch.

BTW, any word when we can expect a ruling from the judges on our debate?

RandomName2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The one with the daughter Elizabeth claimed had died who turned out to not to exist. Izetbekhai has admitted using forged-documents. In any other country, she'd be long gone by now. She's not because we are a soft touch.

BTW, any word when we can expect a ruling from the judges on our debate?

The point is that Pope doesn't care about our courts' judgments and has a very limited logical scope on the matter.

If the judges have to take more time (and Dav said around luchtime) you only have yourself to blame

Edit: Correction - we won!

Hope that I can say that Sunday morning as well - but I doubt it!

Procasinator

RandomName2 wrote: »

The point is that Pope doesn't care about our courts' judgments and has a very limited logical scope on the matter.

If the judges have to take more time (and Dav said around luchtime) you only have yourself to blame

Edit: Correction - we won!

Hope that I can say that Sunday morning as well - but I doubt it!

Have the results been published? Link?

Edit: Found http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055699153

RandomName2

Procasinator wrote: »

Have the results been published? Link?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055699153

- mostly down to FT, I have to admit.

Procasinator

Good job to all who took part and congrats to the No team.

I was disappointed that timing got in the way in some greater contributions to the Yes team argument. A more prepared debate would have been a much more informative read, and yes one sided.

Despite receiving criticisms (which, granted, are not completely unwarranted) I do think FT did the best job of addressing the debate: give well researched (and rather interesting at times) reasons why to vote no to the Lisbon treaty.

Flamed Diving

Bless FT, and his impenetrable wall of text.

Sparks43

well done

ty for the chance to participate

still 4 hours vote no

gl all

Handsome Bob

I have to commend all three judges, they ensured from the beginning that they wouldn't let themselves be influenced by the other (by doing their judgements independently). It must have been truly difficult also to put their own personal feelings aside too so I well done on remaining objective.

I have to agree with Darragh, I just got the impression from the debate that the Yes side fell into a trap of simply refuting the points being made by the No side, rather than also introducing their own compelling arguments in favour of a Yes vote.

Well done to Future Taoiseach and co., while commiserations go out to Blitzkrieg and co. Brilliant debate, well done to all of you.

DeVore

It really was enlightening. It was also fun to end our self enforced embargo on discussing it with each other and finally get to read what the others thought. I reckoned I was being controversial giving it to the No's if even only by the slimest of margins but then I read Dav's judgement and it was very very similar (you can see we repeat several of each others points!).

DeV.

lmimmfn

many congrats on those who got their yes vote, great to see wee in ireland can vote yes/no/yes/no at WHIM. For the rest of us, what countries are available that arent involved? Im most likely moving country as a result of the yes vote and the current pay back the government the money the devs legged it with, Seriously, im thinking of moving to sweden but the UK will surely change to No next year if the conservatives get in power.

FutureTaoiseach

Oh well - at least the no side won something. Maybe that's why I'm not taking it so hard as I expected. As well as our secret weapon: President Klaus. Pyrrhic victory for the "yes" methinks.

passive

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Oh well - at least the no side won something. Maybe that's why I'm not taking it so hard as I expected. As well as our secret weapon: President Klaus. Pyrrhic victory for the "yes" methinks.

I'll assume that's a joke, since there's no way you could possibly support Klaus's actions after all your rhetoric about democracy.

FutureTaoiseach

passive wrote: »

I'll assume that's a joke, since there's no way you could possibly support Klaus's actions after all your rhetoric about democracy.

Yes I could. We voted for Irish ratification of Lisbon - not Czech ratification of Lisbon.

He has a 63% approval rating in the Czech republic, despite attempts by the Brussels Establishment to denigrate him for his stance. The Czech Senate - which approved the Treaty - scores 24%.

Poll 21/09/09 wrote:

Prague - Czech President Vaclav Klaus is trusted by 63 percent of people, which is 4 percentage points more than in August, according to a poll the Centre for Public Opinion Research (CVVM) released to CTK today. The head of state has therefore remained the most trustworthy constitutional institution in the country, followed by local authorities which are trusted by three-fifths of Czechs (58 percent), the September poll showed.

jonoftheburns

Hey guys sorry to resurrect this thread but, as you will know, one of the provisions of Lisbon is for citizens to petition the Commission to take action on things. There is a campaign aiming to be the first to successfully get the requisite 1million signatures here - www.right2bet.net - it's aimed at bring EU online gambling policy in line with the EU's commitment to the internal market.

if this is something any of you sympathise with then you may wish to exercise your Lisbon-given right to civic engagement